(1) Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a method of spatially separating the two orthogonal polarization states of an incident optical signal. Its primary use is in integrated optics, where it is often desirable to split and manipulate an optical signal's orthogonal polarizations independently (polarization diversity). It can also be used in polarization mode dispersion (PMD) compensating devices, where the two orthogonal polarizations must be split, processed, then recombined.
(2) Brief Description of Related Art
Light is a vector field that has two primary and orthogonal polarization states or vector directions. These are sometimes referred to as the S and P polarizations in free space optics, or the TE (Transverse Electric) and TM (Transverse Magnetic) modes of optical waveguides. The performance of optical waveguides and optical devices is often sensitive to the polarization state. That is, the response of the device changes as the polarization state changes. This is particularly pronounced in integrated optical waveguides that are fabricated on dielectric substrates.
Typically, it is desirable to have optical components that are insensitive to the input state of polarization. This criteria arises from the fact that in fiber optic telecommunications, the polarization state of an optical signal that has traveled down any length of fiber is unknown, random, and time varying (due to perturbations in the environment). Great care is often taken in the design and fabrication of optical components so that they behave in a polarization insensitive manner. Despite this effort, most devices remain polarization sensitive to some degree, and this affects ultimate performance, yield, and cost. On the other hand, there are some special applications where the two polarization states of an input optical signal needs to be spatially split so each can be manipulated independently. This is the case for example, in PMD (Polarization Mode Dispersion) compensators, where the dispersion of the signal on the two states needs to be equalized. In applications where the polarizations need to be split, the extinction ratio, which is the ratio of wanted to unwanted polarization in either of the two branches, must be high.
Another general way to handle polarization in a device that is required to behave as if it were polarization insensitive is to split the input polarization into two branches having orthogonal states, process each branch independently with devices that are optimized for each polarization respectively, and then recombine the processed signals together. This scheme is referred to as “polarization diversity”. It has the advantage that each branch can be specifically optimized for its respective polarization, giving the best performance without otherwise having to comprise the ability to give adequate performance over two polarization states simultaneously. The drawbacks are that twice the number of devices are required, and two polarization splitters are needed to split then recombine the signals. Naturally this adds cost and complexity, but the objective is to net an overall superior performing or higher yielding component.
Traditionally, optical components have been quite large, and polarization diversity schemes have not been popular because of the added size and cost associated with packaging twice the componentry plus the splitters. Prospects for polarization diversity improve for integrated optics fabricated on substrates, where the objective is to shrink the size of components and to integrate various functionalities on a common die or chip, similar in concept to integrated electronic circuits (ICs). In this case the polarization splitters and two sets of components are fabricated all at once. Future integrated optical components are miniaturized by the use of high-index contrast waveguides. High-index waveguides themselves are more susceptible to polarization sensitivity. Polarization diversity may be the only path forward for these future high-index contrast components.
Prior Art:
Most polarization beam splitters are bulk optic, and make use of birefringent wave plates. We will not discuss bulk optic polarization splitters here, but only emphasize integrated optic versions.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,946,434 discusses an integrated optic Y-coupler polarization splitter. The splitter works by taking advantage of the difference in waveguide-to-waveguide coupling strengths for two orthogonal polarizations. The optimum structure is a result of an optimized coupling length. Both the coupling length, and the propagation constants are wavelength dependent, and therefore the polarization splitter will have a wavelength dependence, which is undesirable.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,475,771 discusses an integrated optic Y-branching waveguide where one of the branches contains an anisotropic material. The structure requires the integration of an anisotropic material on to the integrated substrate. Such integration is not desirable because the two materials are not well matched in index (leading to scattering loss). Also the fabrication introduces additional steps that impact performance, cost, and yield. Most anisotropic materials can not be deposited by methods used to form the dielectric waveguides.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,293,436 discusses an integrated optic Mach-Zehnder interferometer wherein one branch contains a potable material. Polable materials do not have long term stability, and are not used widely in telecom grade components. The poled materials tend to relax with a certain time constant (that is also affected by environmental conditions), and the performance degrades over time. Further, only certain materials are potable, and very few such materials make good passive low loss optical waveguides.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,151,957 discusses an integrated optic delta-beta coupler configuration in X-cut Lithium Niobate. This method only works in Lithium Niobate, and is therefore not compatible with general integrate optic waveguides and materials.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,133,029 discusses an integrate optic 2×2 beam splitter wherein the set of Y-junctions comprise waveguides of different widths. The waveguides forming the Y-junctions of this device must be comprised of anisotropic materials, and therefore limits the scope of this invention to those integrated optic waveguides using such materials (which is few).
U.S. Pat. No. 5,111,517 discusses an integrated optic Mach-Zehnder in X-cut Lithium Niobate. This method only works in Lithium Niobate, and is therefore not compatible with general integrate optic waveguides and materials.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,056,883 discusses an integrated optic Y-branching waveguide where in one branch contains a glassy polable polymer. This invention is similar to U.S. Pat. No. 5,475,771 above, where the anisotropic material is specifically an anisotropic polymer material (or a polable polymer material) that is deposited over only one branch of the Y-branching waveguide.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,772,084 discusses an integrated optic 3×3 coupler. This invention is similar in its physical mechanism for polarization splitting as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,946,434 above, except that it uses a three-waveguide coupler instead of a two-waveguide coupler, and provides electrodes for post fabrication thermal or electro-optic trimming.